Jesus camp

[GeauxSioux]

Actually, I think that is pretty scary. Not because I dislike Bush(which I do), but because I don't think any human should be worshipped. Worshipping >> blind obedience >> fanaticism >> "violence is okay because it's in <insert deity>'s name." Once that first step of worshipping a living person is made, it's not hard to transfer the devotion to the current "correct thinking" leader. Somehow, I doubt that Washington, Franklin, Adams and Jefferson had bowing and praying to a presidential portrait in mind when they decided that the head of the Church of England was not their cup of tea.

Quite frankly, I despise any person, organization or religion that espouses a "us vs. them" philosophy. The moment you do that, you dehumanize your "enemy", which is the first, dangerous, step towards jihad or genocide. As you might expect, I'm not too fond of our current political system(both halves). And yes, this does apply to my Bison/Sioux feelings. As I said in another post, any negative feelings I have toward UND are aimed at individuals, not the institution. For example, I do not dislike Roger Thomas because he was from UND, I dislike him because of his comments and actions. Those negative feelings do not transfer to Tom Buning. I will judge him completely independently of his predecessors.

Sorry for ranting; this topic kind of pushes my buttons. Have a good afternoon.

Except for the part about disliking Bush, I agree with your post. I believe there a couple of commandments that would be violated by worshipping a picture of Bush.

As for not being impressed with the two parties, depending on whether you are to the right or the left, there are options. Have you ever listened to Neal Boortz on the radio? He is a Libertarian and bashes both the Republicans and Democrats and pushes the Fair Tax, which I support after reading the book. He does lean toward the right, though and supports Bush on many issues. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.

[star2city]

Actually, I think that is pretty scary. Not because I dislike Bush(which I do), but because I don't think any human should be worshipped. Worshipping >> blind obedience >> fanaticism >> "violence is okay because it's in <insert deity>'s name." Once that first step of worshipping a living person is made, it's not hard to transfer the devotion to the current "correct thinking" leader. Somehow, I doubt that Washington, Franklin, Adams and Jefferson had bowing and praying to a presidential portrait in mind when they decided that the head of the Church of England was not their cup of tea.

Good grief! This journalist sucked you guys right in. Has anyone ever considered the possibility of journalistic biases and agendas? If any set of people are aware of the danger of idol worship, it is pentecostals, and they avoid it like the plague.

[PCM]

Let me make something clear: If the accounts of the "Jesus camp" are accurate (and even the ABC story notes that not everyone agrees they are), then I don't approve of how the children are being indoctrinated. Nor do I approve of parents who send their children to such a place.

However, the idea that this type of thinking represents mainstream Christianity in the U.S. is ludicrous, as is the idea that these groups are a greater threat to the nation than Muslim fundamentalist extremists. I say this as someone raised as a Christian who now considers himself an agnostic (for lack of a better term).

So what do those who are horrified by this camp propose to do? Toss out the First Amendment and bring Janet Reno out of retirement?

[PCM]

Good grief! This journalist sucked you guys right in. Has anyone ever considered the possibility of journalistic biases and agendas?

Yep. This part of the ABC article gave it away:

"This is an enormous youth movement," said Lauren Sandler, a secular, liberal feminist from New York City who spent months among the believers researching her new book, "Righteous."

Sandler says the evangelical youth movement will have a negative impact on the country's future, because even the most moderate young evangelicals are inflexible on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

So now who's espousing the "us against them" ideology? Ms. Sandler seems to believe that teaching young people anything that doesn't agree with her political views is harmful.

Sadly, I know from recent experience that her viewpoint is all too prevalent in academia. That

[The Sicatoka]

... and worshipping a picture of President Bush

[Hammersmith]

However, the idea that this type of thinking represents mainstream Christianity in the U.S. is ludicrous, as is the idea that these groups are a greater threat to the nation than Muslim fundamentalist extremists. I say this as someone raised as a Christian who now considers himself an agnostic (for lack of a better term).

I don't think anyone on this thread has said, or even implied, that these groups represented mainstream Christianity. However, I would argue that these Christian extremist groups are exactly as dangerous as any other; including Islamic, Jewish, Irish Catholic, Basque, Marxist, etc. Once the line into fanaticism is crossed, the resulting personality is a loaded gun, just waiting to be pointed at whatever target the faction's leader decides is worth destroying. The Muslim groups may have had a few years head start, but the Christian groups are doing their best to catch up. Hey, if it works for them...

Regarding the worshipping comments: I was responding more to PCM's reaction to the quote than to the actual quote itself. It seemed like he was saying it was no big deal if it was true. That set off my warning bells.

As for Ms. Sandler, two points. If she is inflexibly ideological, as I suspect she is(BTW, being secular, liberal and feminist does not automatically mean someone is), then, yes, I feel about her the same as I would any other ideologue, right or left. However, her point about inflexible thinking is valid. The hallmark of a rational mind is the ability to consider points of view that differ from your own and judge them on their merits, then modify your own views when they come up wanting. This runs counter to all fundamentalist-type educations. No matter what the Christian-right would have you believe, this country was founded on the principles of reason and rational thought. It wasn't called "The Age of Reason" for nothing. I am also an agnostic and the closest I have to holy scripture is the US Constitution. I don't know if a better document could be written(that's a real agnostic joke). With that in mind, the Christian-right scares the hell out of me(another pun-sorry). The republicans and democrats are ideologues, but they hold each other in check for the most part. There is no check against the C-R. They have the power and the will to exercise it. That terrifies me.

Libertarians don't do much for me. They seem to be just as inflexibly ideological as any other party. I'm pretty much stuck trying to vote for the candidate with the best character, and hoping that his/her party leadership doesn't corrupt them too much. I guess I'm stuck being a party of one <snort>.

[ScottM]

Meh. I don't see Ms. Sandler's concern. If these kids are like the "fundamentalists" around here, and this is the hem of the Bible Belt, they'll be in the bars, strip clubs and casinos on Saturday night, and occupying the premium pews in the mega-churches on Sunday morning.

[PCM]

The Muslim groups may have had a few years head start, but the Christian groups are doing their best to catch up. Hey, if it works for them...

And that's where I call bovine scatology. There's nothing remotely similar in the two ideologies or their approaches. The main reason that Christian extremists in the U.S. will never, ever catch up to their Muslim counterparts is that A) they don't have the support of the mainstream Christian religious community and B) our government will break them up if they use or promote violence. The exact opposite is true in Middle Eastern countries in which religious extremist ideologies are not only the norm, they're supported and protected by national governments.

That is a vast and important difference. I'm not saying that there's no chance Christian extremists will ever resort to violence because they obviously have at times. But whenever that's happened, they've been hunted down and thrown in jail or killed.

So, by all means, keep an eye on the Jesus camps, and if they break the law, punish them for it. I have absolutely no problem with that. Just don't expect me to believe that they're the moral equivalent of al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah.

[CoteauRinkRat]

The Muslim groups may have had a few years head start, but the Christian groups are doing their best to catch up. Hey, if it works for them...

I see that PCM posted about this already, but this statement is outrageous.

Thankfully our government punishes religious extremists in this country when they break the law, the same cannot be said for many in the Middle East.

I'm not sure where you are getting the majority of your news from, but Al-Jazeera might not be the most objective source.

[Eskimos]

However, her point about inflexible thinking is valid. The hallmark of a rational mind is the ability to consider points of view that differ from your own and judge them on their merits, then modify your own views when they come up wanting.

Sandler's basic premise was that the children who attend these camps will impact our country negatively in the future because they disagree with her on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Now that is the definition of someone who is inflexible in their thinking. Ms. Sandler might want to look in a mirror sometime.

[AccountingStu]

So we have "Army of God I" vs. "Army of God II?"

Fine. These kids are primed to be alcoholics by the 8th grade anyway.

[Hammersmith]

Sandler's basic premise was that the children who attend these camps will impact our country negatively in the future because they disagree with her on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Now that is the definition of someone who is inflexible in their thinking. Ms. Sandler might want to look in a mirror sometime.

Yes, and as I stated in the sentence that immediately preceded the one you quoted, if those are her motivations, I don't agree with them. However, taken in isolation of her motives, the general concept of the negativity of inflexible thinking is valid. The best schools teach flexible thinking. It allows a person to approach a problem from multiple angles and it allows people with differing views to have civil discourse about delicate subjects. A broken clock is still right twice a day? Well, even a left-wing freak can have a valid point every now and then.

[PCM]

Well, even a left-wing freak can have a valid point every now and then.

Or be a complete hyporcrite, which seems obvious in this instance.

[Hammersmith]

And that's where I call bovine scatology. There's nothing remotely similar in the two ideologies or their approaches. The main reason that Christian extremists in the U.S. will never, ever catch up to their Muslim counterparts is that A) they don't have the support of the mainstream Christian religious community and B) our government will break them up if they use or promote violence. The exact opposite is true in Middle Eastern countries in which religious extremist ideologies are not only the norm, they're supported and protected by national governments.

That is a vast and important difference. I'm not saying that there's no chance Christian extremists will ever resort to violence because they obviously have at times. But whenever that's happened, they've been hunted down and thrown in jail or killed.

So, by all means, keep an eye on the Jesus camps, and if they break the law, punish them for it. I have absolutely no problem with that. Just don't expect me to believe that they're the moral equivalent of al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah.

I'll try to make this my last post on the subject, and then I'll go away. The similarity between the two groups is in the fact that they are both ideologies. Ideologues are incapable of accepting facts that contradict their ideologies. Reasoning doesn't work with them. I didn't think about it before you mentioned it, but I wasn't thinking in moral terms as much as functional terms. Scenario: you have a group of Christian fundamentalists trained from grade school in a way similar to what was described at Devil's Lake. The leader is a moral individual with good intentions, but he teaches blind obedience. Later, a new, less-moral, leader takes over and uses the followers to commit violent acts. Morally, this group and a Islamic terror-cell are different, but functually they are the same. In both cases, free will was given up for a "higher cause." That relinquishing of free will is what scares me. The other half is that I'm somewhat afraid that a future government that was elected by a greater proportion of evangelical Christians than elected Bush, will relax their monitoring of radical Christian groups because they think, "Well, there're Christians too, so there's no way they'd do anything that bad." I realize the odds of that aren't huge, but just one Oklahoma City or Tokyo subway...

I hope it was understood, but just in case; never have I been making the connection: Christians = Bad. It's always been: Ideologues = Bad. Or more precisely: Radical, Fundamentalist Ideologues = Bad.

[jloos]

Website

Worshipping George Bush??? Get real!!!

This is a ridiculous rumor that was started by the story ABC News ran on their network. Obviously the people who wrote the story and the newscaster who reported it didn't know what they were watching, or deliberately misinterpreted the actions of the children in the clip they showed. If it was a misunderstanding, it shows their ignorance of prayer because when you see the movie, you will very clearly hear the speaker tell the children to "bless" President Bush and to "pray" for him.

I'm actually insulted anyone would believe we were making children worship the President.!

Are you raising up Christian terrorists or another Hitler Youth Movement?

This is probably the most frustrating and exasperating part of this film for me. This is the conclusion people are coming to when they see the trailer, and I have to say that if I was not a believer in Christ and I saw nothing but the trailer, I would probably come away with the same impression.

But any born again Christian should be able to read between the lines and know there is absolutely no truth to this at all, and I hope other discerning individuals will as well.

There are many scriptures in the Bible that use terminology like "warfare," "weapons," "armor" and so on. When born again Christians speak of warfare they mean "spiritual" warfare. This is a war of ideologies and spiritual issues, and not a physical war that is fought with guns and bombs. Christians do believe they are in a cultural war for the lives and souls of people worldwide, and particularly for the minds and hearts of our children and youth.

There's a clip in the trailer that shows me with my arms raised up and I'm shouting, "This means war!" That came during a prayer time at the end of one of our services where I spoke on the battle we wage against sin and temptation we fight on a daily basis. We had spoken about the challenges of keeping our minds and our hearts pure in a world that throws all kinds of mental and visual trash at us all the time. But out of context it could be taken to mean anything!

The unfortunate thing is that right now the secular world has no other grid to go by than what is happening in the war on terror, and the terrorists themselves sending their young out to blow themselves up and take as many other people with them as they can at the same time. But that has nothing to do with the way Christians think of spiritual warfare. The weapons Christians use is prayer, the Word of God [bible], and so on.

Is your camp typical of Christian Kids Camps in America?

The short, quick answer is no. Most Christian camps spend much more time hiking, swimming, doing crafts, etc. in addition to spiritual education.

Though we include those fun things as well, our primary focus at both our camps and conferences is very intense Christian teaching for several hours a day that would really be on an adult level of ministry as far as topics and intensity. We do this because we have a very different viewpoint of discipling children than most children's ministries.

This is also why families come from all over the United States to put their children under our ministry. They see the difference and they have seen very positive fruit of our ministry in the lives of their children and they are anxious to include their children in our activities.

Dever Post article

[star2city]

you have a group of Christian fundamentalists trained from grade school in a way similar to what was described at Devil's Lake. The leader is a moral individual with good intentions, but he teaches blind obedience. Later, a new, less-moral, leader takes over and uses the followers to commit violent acts. Morally, this group and a Islamic terror-cell are different, but functually they are the same.

Hammersmith:

Your ignorance in Christian matters is showing. Pentecostals are not fundamentalists: fundamentalists generally follow a certain set of tenants and are generally leary of outward spiritual expression. Jerry Falwell almost certainly would not send his children to the Prayer Camp in question, but Pentecostals as well Lutheran, Methodist, non-denominational and Catholic parents with charismatic leanings would.

Contrary to what has been stated on this thread, Pentecostalism is actually becoming the mainstream of Christianity. Denominations that do not emphasize the development the spirituality of their memberships are rapidly declining and will probably not exist within two generations.

http://www.religionlink.org/tip_060130.php

The trend toward a more "spiritual" rather than "religious" style of faith, experts say, has played to the strengths of Pentecostalism, which emphasizes an ecstatic, individual encounter with Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Consequently, one can find a variety of Pentecostal-inspired movements, such as "Charismatic Catholics," even in the traditional, liturgy-oriented churches.

North Dakota actually has had a major impact on pentecostal movement, which is just 100 years old and now includes a half billion people worldwide. No other Christian movement as ever impacted so many people so quickly. The two major Pentecostal denominations in this country both have had leaders that proved critical to the growth of Pentecostalism that were born and raised in North Dakota. Phil Jackson's parent were Pentecostal ministers in Williston.

April 2006 marks the centennial of the modern Pentecostal movement, the spiritual resurgence that began as a local revival on Azusa Street in Los Angeles and has since spread around the globe.

Scholars estimate that there are 10 million Pentecostals in the United States and 400 million to 600 million worldwide, or about one-quarter of the world's Christian population. The movement is far larger outside the United States, in Latin America, Africa and Asia, where Christianity is experiencing its greatest growth.

A revolution has already occurred in Christianity. The press just missed reporting it by 100 years.

[star2city]

On the Say Anything blog, there's been discussions about the prayer camp. One comment that I thought was especially enlightening:

http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/09/21/rethinking_jesus_camp/

Not to pick on you Justin but this just emphasizes the ignorant, overly sensitive population of the world.

If one studies the life of Christ, the saints, and the old testament you can find references to a stuggle for salvation and a fight to bring Christ's message to the people. So I ask, is it really inappropriate to use the term soldier or warrior if the context is referring to a non-militant action.

Next thing that will enter into the debate over the use of the Fighting Sioux name will be the name indicates violence and warfare and therefore it is inappropriate.

[GaryP]

I would say that just perhaps the reason this type of activity http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2477170

does not happen in our country is because of the tradition of tolerance that the 1st amendment has fostered.

IF (and I admit it might be a bigger IF than I can represent here) the Jesus Camp concept became more prevelent could it be more likely that SOME of the majority religion might react to perceived or real threats to their religion with similar results as in Indonesia?

[PCM]

IF (and I admit it might be a bigger IF than I can represent here) the Jesus Camp concept became more prevelent could it be more likely that SOME of the majority religion might react to perceived or real threats to their religion with similar results as in Indonesia?

I sincerely doubt it. I think you need to stop using your magnifying glass to look for possible slivers of light coming under your precious wall between church and state and pay a bit more attention to the real threats from real religious fundamentalists who have demonstrated exactly what they can and will do given the opportunity.

[GaryP]

The slivers of light are more like a freight train headlight as it's about to crash through T. Jefferson's wall under both Bush and most Democrats.

Tens of millions to faith based groups; no federal dollars for stem cell research; govt. ceremonies that resemble worship services; Falwell , Dobson , Kennedy having so much influence in Washington.

Check out the Texas Republican platform sometime.

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Pla....pdf?docID=2001

[PCM]

Tens of millions to faith based groups; no federal dollars for stem cell research; govt. ceremonies that resemble worship services; Falwell , Dobson , Kennedy having so much influence in Washington.

So your solution is to deny Christians who disagree with your political positions their First Amendment rights?

[GaryP]

What 1st amendment right gives churches the power to take tax money from everybody and spend it for their charities? All the while they still have tax exempt status on their property and can disciminate as to who they hire. This is such a bad precedent that Bush could not even get it through a Republican Congress. He initiated it through an executive order.

The only 1st amendment ramification I can percieve you're speaking of is stem-cell research. Of course they can make their case but IMO the solution to each problem should have a secular basis . Simply saying that we can't have stem cell reseach because they think that's what God wouldn't want shouldn't cut it.

[GaryP]

Here's a Quick time video (about 9 mins) of Bill Maher & a panel discussing the camp. The panel members are a Muslim (Reza Aslan), a conservative Christian (Sandy Rios of Fox News), and a liberal Episcopalian (Bradley Whitford, the actor).

http://tinyurl.com/lns87

[PCM]

Here's a Quick time video (about 9 mins) of Bill Maher...

Enough already. You've made your point. You think peoples' religious beliefs -- especially those with Christian beliefs -- should play no role in determining government policies. You are a religious bigot. I get it.

[GaryP]

I know that one can't leave their religious beliefs behind when it comes to making public policy. I just don't think that that belief should be the end of the discussion.

I'm reminded of an old bumper sticker; God said It : so that's IT (or something like that).

We need more fact-based policy decisions and fewer faith-based ones.

Take care-- I shall do the Christain thing and turn my other cheek so you can take another whack if you wish.